Carpenter v. United States
E127874
Carpenter v. United States is a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the government generally must obtain a warrant to access historical cell phone location records under the Fourth Amendment.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Carpenter v. United States canonical | 4 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T1076330 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Carpenter v. United States Context triple: [Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, landmarkCase, Carpenter v. United States]
-
A.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
B.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
C.
Katz v. United States
Katz v. United States is a landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that redefined Fourth Amendment protections by establishing that the amendment safeguards people’s reasonable expectations of privacy, not just physical places.
-
D.
Dickerson v. United States
Dickerson v. United States is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the constitutional basis of Miranda warnings and held that Congress could not overrule Miranda v. Arizona by statute.
-
E.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Carpenter v. United States Target entity description: Carpenter v. United States is a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the government generally must obtain a warrant to access historical cell phone location records under the Fourth Amendment.
-
A.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
B.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
C.
Katz v. United States
Katz v. United States is a landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that redefined Fourth Amendment protections by establishing that the amendment safeguards people’s reasonable expectations of privacy, not just physical places.
-
D.
Dickerson v. United States
Dickerson v. United States is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the constitutional basis of Miranda warnings and held that Congress could not overrule Miranda v. Arizona by statute.
-
E.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Fourth Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ privacy law case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal procedure ⓘ privacy law ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 2017-11-29 ⓘ |
| chiefJusticeAtDecision | John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ |
| citation |
138 S. Ct. 2206
ⓘ
201 L. Ed. 2d 507 ⓘ 585 U.S. ___ ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| decidedDate | 2018-06-22 ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2018-06-22 ⓘ |
| dissentingJustice |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ Neil M. Gorsuch ⓘ Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 16-402 ⓘ |
| holding |
Individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the record of their physical movements as captured through historical cell-site location information.
ⓘ
The government generally must obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring historical cell-site location information from a wireless carrier. ⓘ |
| impact |
expanded Fourth Amendment protections for location data
ⓘ
limited the scope of the third-party doctrine for digital data ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| keyword |
historical cell phone location records
ⓘ
reasonable expectation of privacy ⓘ warrant requirement ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Fourth Amendment
ⓘ
cell-site location information ⓘ search and seizure ⓘ third-party doctrine ⓘ |
| majorityJoinedBy |
Elena Kagan
ⓘ
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ |
| originatingCourt | United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ⓘ |
| originatingCourtDecision | affirmed in part and reversed in part ⓘ |
| overrulesInPart | application of the third-party doctrine to historical cell-site location information ⓘ |
| petitioner | Timothy Ivory Carpenter ⓘ |
| relatedTechnology |
cell phone location records
ⓘ
cell-site location information ⓘ |
| respondent |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| subjectMatter |
digital privacy
ⓘ
government access to telecommunications records ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2017 ⓘ |
| voteSplit | 5-4 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Carpenter v. United States Description of subject: Carpenter v. United States is a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the government generally must obtain a warrant to access historical cell phone location records under the Fourth Amendment.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.